通过评审后主动撤稿——这个决定令人感到既欣慰又不安。欣慰：Sakana AI 展示了负责任的研究伦理；不安：如果换一个不那么有道德感的团队，这篇 AI 生成的论文本可以悄悄混入正式出版的学术文献库。同行评审制度目前对 AI 生成内容几乎没有系统性防御，这是整个学术界的集体盲点。

Comment by Janneke_Adema: Comment by drneilfox: Hello. This is my first entry. Dario and I plan to create a podcast that has three elements:

1) A formal exploration of the podcast form using our own podcast as a case study. 2) A discussion around academic research and the podcast. 3) A discussion around the 'disruptive journal' featuring input from JMP contributors.

The aim is to construct a text that operates as a viable and valid piece of research and also is reflexive regarding the changing nature of academic research.

We will be talking in person late July following some leave and will be emailing disruptive JMP participants shortly to invite them to participate.

For now I listening to podcasts to prepare, and recommend the latest NPR Invisibilia episode on problem solving, and any episode of the brilliant Longford Podcast.

AI powered research tools - built for academics

Scholars Talk Writing: Helen Sword by [[Rachel Toor]] in Chronicle of Higher Education, 2017-07-31 archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20210722062708/https://www.chronicle.com/article/scholars-talk-writing-helen-sword/

Comment by drneilfox: Hello. This is my first entry. Dario and I plan to create a podcast that has three elements:

1) A formal exploration of the podcast form using our own podcast as a case study. 2) A discussion around academic research and the podcast. 3) A discussion around the 'disruptive journal' featuring input from JMP contributors.

The aim is to construct a text that operates as a viable and valid piece of research and also is reflexive regarding the changing nature of academic research.

We will be talking in person late July following some leave and will be emailing disruptive JMP participants shortly to invite them to participate.

For now I listening to podcasts to prepare, and recommend the latest NPR Invisibilia episode on problem solving, and any episode of the brilliant Longford Podcast.

Thanks for this! I like the framing and general concept of the book.

It seems like its a good follow on to Dan Allosso's OER text How to Make Notes and Write https://minnstate.pressbooks.pub/write/ or Sönke Ahrens' How to Take Smart Notes https://amzn.to/3DwJVMz which includes some useful psychology and mental health perspective.

Other similar examples are Umberto Eco's How to Write a Thesis (MIT, 2015) or Gerald Weinberg's The Fieldstone Method https://amzn.to/3DCf6GA These may be some of what we're all missing.

I'm reminded of Mark Robertson's (@calhistorian) discussion of modeling his note taking practice and output in his classroom using Roam Research. https://hyp.is/QuB5NDa0Ee28hUP7ExvFuw/thatsthenorm.com/mark-robertson-history-socratic-dialogue/ Perhaps we need more of this?

Early examples of this sort of note taking can also be seen in the religious studies space with Melanchthon's handbook on commonplaces or Jonathan Edwards' Miscellanies, though missing are the process from notes to writings. https://www.logos.com/grow/jonathan-edwards-organizational-genius/

Other examples of these practices in the wild include @andy_matuschak's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGcs4tyey18 and TheNonPoet's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sdp0jo2Fe4 Though it may be better for students to see this in areas in which they're interested.

Hypothes.is as a potential means of modeling and allowing students to directly "see" this sort of work as it progresses using public/semi-public annotations may be helpful. Then one can separately model re-arranging them and writing a paper. https://web.hypothes.is/

Reply to: https://twitter.com/BenjaminVanDyne/status/1571171086171095042

ReconfigBehSci. (2020, November 10). Now #scibeh2020: Presentation and Q&A with Martha Scherzer, senior risk communication and community engagement (RCCE) Consultant at the World Health Organization https://t.co/Gsr66BRGcJ [Tweet]. @SciBeh. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1326148149870809089

I wonder if it would be useful to distinguish between research and scholarship, where formal research is but one type of scholarly practice?

If we look at a journal as a channel for promoting scholarship then there's no reason that we can't include essays as a category of writing.

Saltz, E., Leibowicz, C., & Wardle, C. (2020). Encounters with Visual Misinformation and Labels Across Platforms: An Interview and Diary Study to Inform Ecosystem Approaches to Misinformation Interventions. ArXiv:2011.12758 [Cs]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2011.12758

You cannot practice public health without engaging in politics. (2021, March 29). The BMJ. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/03/29/you-cannot-practice-public-health-without-engaging-in-politics/

Impact of Social Sciences. ‘How to Run an Academic Writing Retreat and Bring the Campus Back Together’, 9 November 2020. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/11/09/how-to-run-an-academic-writing-retreat-and-bring-the-campus-back-together/.

GCS. ‘GCS Launches New Behaviour Change Guide’. Accessed 8 February 2021. https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/news/gcs-launches-new-behaviour-change-guide/.

r/BehSciResearch—Inertia in academic priorities. (n.d.). Reddit. Retrieved June 16, 2020, from https://www.reddit.com/r/BehSciResearch/comments/h9cilq/inertia_in_academic_priorities/

Health Psychology Exchange

Urbina, A. (2020, May 8). What do we know about University Academics’ Mental Health? A Systematic Literature Review. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/37jhr

agency, voice research community

SocArXiv - an upcoming open archive of papers in the social sciences modeled on arxiv.org.

https://twitter.com/socarxiv

Hello. This is my first entry. Dario and I plan to create a podcast that has three elements:

1) A formal exploration of the podcast form using our own podcast as a case study. 2) A discussion around academic research and the podcast. 3) A discussion around the 'disruptive journal' featuring input from JMP contributors.

The aim is to construct a text that operates as a viable and valid piece of research and also is reflexive regarding the changing nature of academic research.

We will be talking in person late July following some leave and will be emailing disruptive JMP participants shortly to invite them to participate.

For now I listening to podcasts to prepare, and recommend the latest NPR Invisibilia episode on problem solving, and any episode of the brilliant Longford Podcast.

Scientists sharing knowledge! Naughty!

We believe that openness and transparency are core values of science. For a long time, technological obstacles existed preventing transparency from being the norm. With the advent of the internet, however, these obstacles have largely disappeared. The promise of open research can finally be realized, but this will require a cultural change in science. The power to create that change lies in the peer-review process.

We suggest that beginning January 1, 2017, reviewers make open practices a pre-condition for more comprehensive review. This is already in reviewers’ power; to drive the change, all that is needed is for reviewers to collectively agree that the time for change has come.